Posted on 02/02/2007 1:28:44 PM PST by YCTHouston
You could say that both the state government and the family groups that oppose the vaccine are omnipotent busybodies and that they are doing so for their own conscience.
No, you couldn't, because the family groups that oppose the vaccine are not trying to force everyone to follow their directives or conscience. They are not trying to prohibit everyone from taking it and force their conscience on others. They just want the freedom to make the decision for themselves and allow others to make the decision for themselves, also.
Unlawful nanny state BS ping
This group of virus infects 80% of the female population. It is an excellent public health initiative on the part of Texas.
I am not against this vaccine, but I do not want my little 10 year old daughters getting it right now.
One of my daughters has brain damage, and has some impulse problems. I'm worried she'll be impulsive with sex, so I'm pretty realistic about all of this stuff. If it really will keep her pretty safe, we'll probably go ahead with the vaccine. My other daughter is very level headed. I think she'll either wait until she's married (or at least wait until she's an adult). She's a thinker. I know when she does have sex, she'll be the type to be prepared.
I just think waiting until they are at least 16 seems like a reasonable thing. If you think your daughter is going to be sexually active, then get it younger.
Also, you have to look at the side effects of all vaccines. What are the risks and what are the benefits? Are the benefits worth the risk?
Why not just provide the vaccine for free and let parents choose what to do about their children?
That won't happen. They'll detect those defects early, and abort the babies. It's a whole new world!
If your story were true, you'd have a good lawsuit against the doctor(s) who overlooked the early warnings.
Offering it is fine. Ordering it is not.
Definition of cervical cancer: Cancer that forms in tissues of the cervix (the organ connecting the uterus and vagina). It is usually a slow-growing cancer that may not have symptoms but can be found with regular Pap tests (a procedure in which cells are scraped from the cervix and looked at under a microscope).
Regular pap tests would probably go a lot further. It would catch those in the pre-cancerous stage when it is much more treatable, as opposed to forcibly vaccinating millions of girls against something they stand very little risk of developing, with who knows what long terms side effects, not to mention the loss of personal freedom.
It easier to provide a vaccine and not develp the precancerous stage at all. And out of 10 million girls, 8 million WILL get HPV. And if yopu don't want your daughter to be vaccinated against something she will likely get, you can. Public health laws differ on your opinion on freedom in this case.
I think there are a lot of us that think 12 years old is too young, and it they are not sexually active then why vaccinate them.
It just shouldn't be mandated.
It's an excellent profit booster for Merck.
On several other threads, HonestConservative revelaed she worked on developing the vaccine. The manufactuer is losing money on it and in a different thread, made note that it giving it away in many places.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1776624/posts?page=76#76
No it is not. Merck will not recover the development costs.
That's why it is given then. It needs to be given before the girls become sexually active ---> before they could be infected. It won't work if you give it to them later. And if you had a daughter and you never let her have the vaccine, what would you say to her if, in her 30's, she develops a cancer that could have been prevented.
So it's charity? I love all you anonymous on-line "docs" who post assertion after assertion with no support.
Who takes their kids to the doctor over chicken pox? Everybody I know got through it with a bottle of Calamine lotion or Caladryl, some aspirin, and coloring books or video games. I don't know anyone who went to a doctor, or got a vaccination against it. And yet, we all survived.
I understand that it needs to be given before she is sexually active. But why not wait until she is 16?
Or if you know your child is not active at that point, then 18. I would really prefer that we wait until 18 and my daughter could figure out what she wants to do on her own.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.